Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Should the Technical Committee meetings be dropped?

2017-05-07 Thread Flavio Percoco

On 07/05/17 11:59 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:

Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2017-05-07 09:49:41 -0400:

On 05/05/17 08:45 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>On 05/04/2017 01:10 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>
>> Some of the current TC activities depend on the meeting to some extent:
>>
>> * We use the meeting to give the final ack on some the formal-vote reviews.
>> * Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting agenda to know what they
>>  should be reviewing.
>> * Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting as a way to review or
>>  paticipate in active discussions.
>> * Some folks use the meeting logs to catch up on what's going on in the TC
>>
>> In the resolution that has been proposed[1], we've listed possible
>> solutions for
>> some of this issues and others:
>>
>> * Having office hours
>> * Sending weekly updates (pulse) on the current reviews and TC discussions
>>
>> Regardless we do this change on one-shot or multiple steps (or don't do
>> it at
>> all), I believe it requires changing the way TC activities are done:
>>
>> * It requires folks (especially TC members) to be more active on reviewing
>>  governance patches
>> * It requires folks to engage more on the mailing list and start more
>>  discussions there.
>>
>> Sending this out to kick off a broader discussion on these topics.
>> Thoughts?
>> Opinions? Objections?
>
>To baseline: I am all in favor of an eventual world to get rid of the TC
>IRC meeting (and honestly IRC meetings in general), for all the reasons
>listed above.
>
>I shut down my IRC bouncer over a year ago specifically because I think
>that the assumption of being on IRC all the time is an anti pattern that
>we should be avoiding in our community.
>
>But, that being said, we have a working system right now, one where I
>honestly can't remember the last time we had an IRC meeting get to every
>topic we wanted to cover and not run into the time limit. That is data
>that these needs are not being addressed in other places (yet).
>
>So the concrete steps I would go with is:
>
>1) We need to stop requiring IRC meetings as part of meeting the Open
>definition.
>
>That has propagated this issue a lot -
>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/462077
>
>2) We really need to stop putting items like the project adds.
>
>That's often forcing someone up in the middle of the night for 15
>minutes for no particularly good reason.

We've been doing this because it is a requirement in our process but yeah, we
can change this.

>3) Don't do interactive reviews in gerrit.
>
>Again, kind of a waste of time that is better in async. It's mostly
>triggered by the fact that gerrit doesn't make a good discussion medium
>in looking at broad strokes. It's really good about precision feedback,
>but broad strokes, it's tough.
>
>One counter suggestion here is to have every governance patch that's not
>trivial require that an email come to the list tagged [tc] [governance]
>for people to comment more free form here.

I've mentioned this a gazillion of times and I believe it just keeps going
unheard. I think this should be the *default* and I don't think requiring a
thread to be started is enough. I think we can be more proactive and start
threads ourselves when one is needed. The reason is that in "heated" patches
there can be different topics and we might need multiple-threads for some
patches. There's a lot that will have to be done to keep these emails on track.

>4) See what the impact of the summary that Chris is sending out does to
>make people feel like they understand what is going on in the meeting.
>Because I also think that we make assumptions that the log of the
>meeting describes what really happened. And I think that's often an
>incorrect assumption. The same words used by Monty, Thierry, Jeremy mean
>different things. Which you only know by knowing them all as people.
>Having human interpretation of the meeting is good an puts together a
>more ingestible narrative for people.

I disagree! I don't think we make those assumptions, which is why Anne and
myself worked on those blog posts summarizing what had been going on in the TC.
Those posts stopped but I think we should start working on them already. I've
pinged cdent and I think he's up to work with me on this. cdent yay/nay ?

>
>Then evaluate because we will know that we need the meeting less (or
>less often) when we're regularly ending in 45 minutes, or 30 minutes,
>instead of slamming up against the wall with people feeling they had
>more to say.

TBH, I'm a bit frustrated. what you've written here looks a lot to what's in the
resolution and what I've been saying except that the suggestion is to not shut
meetings down right away but evaluate what happens and then shut them down, or
not, which is fine.

My problem with this is that we *need* everyone in the TC to *actually* change
the way they work on their TC tasks. We need to be more proactive in reviews
that *are not* in the meeting agenda, we need to engage more frequently 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Should the Technical Committee meetings be dropped?

2017-05-07 Thread Doug Hellmann
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2017-05-07 09:49:41 -0400:
> On 05/05/17 08:45 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >On 05/04/2017 01:10 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> >
> >> Some of the current TC activities depend on the meeting to some extent:
> >>
> >> * We use the meeting to give the final ack on some the formal-vote reviews.
> >> * Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting agenda to know what they
> >>  should be reviewing.
> >> * Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting as a way to review or
> >>  paticipate in active discussions.
> >> * Some folks use the meeting logs to catch up on what's going on in the TC
> >>
> >> In the resolution that has been proposed[1], we've listed possible
> >> solutions for
> >> some of this issues and others:
> >>
> >> * Having office hours
> >> * Sending weekly updates (pulse) on the current reviews and TC discussions
> >>
> >> Regardless we do this change on one-shot or multiple steps (or don't do
> >> it at
> >> all), I believe it requires changing the way TC activities are done:
> >>
> >> * It requires folks (especially TC members) to be more active on reviewing
> >>  governance patches
> >> * It requires folks to engage more on the mailing list and start more
> >>  discussions there.
> >>
> >> Sending this out to kick off a broader discussion on these topics.
> >> Thoughts?
> >> Opinions? Objections?
> >
> >To baseline: I am all in favor of an eventual world to get rid of the TC
> >IRC meeting (and honestly IRC meetings in general), for all the reasons
> >listed above.
> >
> >I shut down my IRC bouncer over a year ago specifically because I think
> >that the assumption of being on IRC all the time is an anti pattern that
> >we should be avoiding in our community.
> >
> >But, that being said, we have a working system right now, one where I
> >honestly can't remember the last time we had an IRC meeting get to every
> >topic we wanted to cover and not run into the time limit. That is data
> >that these needs are not being addressed in other places (yet).
> >
> >So the concrete steps I would go with is:
> >
> >1) We need to stop requiring IRC meetings as part of meeting the Open
> >definition.
> >
> >That has propagated this issue a lot -
> >https://review.openstack.org/#/c/462077
> >
> >2) We really need to stop putting items like the project adds.
> >
> >That's often forcing someone up in the middle of the night for 15
> >minutes for no particularly good reason.
> 
> We've been doing this because it is a requirement in our process but yeah, we
> can change this.
> 
> >3) Don't do interactive reviews in gerrit.
> >
> >Again, kind of a waste of time that is better in async. It's mostly
> >triggered by the fact that gerrit doesn't make a good discussion medium
> >in looking at broad strokes. It's really good about precision feedback,
> >but broad strokes, it's tough.
> >
> >One counter suggestion here is to have every governance patch that's not
> >trivial require that an email come to the list tagged [tc] [governance]
> >for people to comment more free form here.
> 
> I've mentioned this a gazillion of times and I believe it just keeps going
> unheard. I think this should be the *default* and I don't think requiring a
> thread to be started is enough. I think we can be more proactive and start
> threads ourselves when one is needed. The reason is that in "heated" patches
> there can be different topics and we might need multiple-threads for some
> patches. There's a lot that will have to be done to keep these emails on 
> track.
> 
> >4) See what the impact of the summary that Chris is sending out does to
> >make people feel like they understand what is going on in the meeting.
> >Because I also think that we make assumptions that the log of the
> >meeting describes what really happened. And I think that's often an
> >incorrect assumption. The same words used by Monty, Thierry, Jeremy mean
> >different things. Which you only know by knowing them all as people.
> >Having human interpretation of the meeting is good an puts together a
> >more ingestible narrative for people.
> 
> I disagree! I don't think we make those assumptions, which is why Anne and
> myself worked on those blog posts summarizing what had been going on in the 
> TC.
> Those posts stopped but I think we should start working on them already. I've
> pinged cdent and I think he's up to work with me on this. cdent yay/nay ?
> 
> >
> >Then evaluate because we will know that we need the meeting less (or
> >less often) when we're regularly ending in 45 minutes, or 30 minutes,
> >instead of slamming up against the wall with people feeling they had
> >more to say.
> 
> TBH, I'm a bit frustrated. what you've written here looks a lot to what's in 
> the
> resolution and what I've been saying except that the suggestion is to not shut
> meetings down right away but evaluate what happens and then shut them down, or
> not, which is fine.
> 
> My problem with this is that we *need* everyone in the TC 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Should the Technical Committee meetings be dropped?

2017-05-07 Thread Flavio Percoco

On 05/05/17 08:45 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:

On 05/04/2017 01:10 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote:


Some of the current TC activities depend on the meeting to some extent:

* We use the meeting to give the final ack on some the formal-vote reviews.
* Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting agenda to know what they
 should be reviewing.
* Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting as a way to review or
 paticipate in active discussions.
* Some folks use the meeting logs to catch up on what's going on in the TC

In the resolution that has been proposed[1], we've listed possible
solutions for
some of this issues and others:

* Having office hours
* Sending weekly updates (pulse) on the current reviews and TC discussions

Regardless we do this change on one-shot or multiple steps (or don't do
it at
all), I believe it requires changing the way TC activities are done:

* It requires folks (especially TC members) to be more active on reviewing
 governance patches
* It requires folks to engage more on the mailing list and start more
 discussions there.

Sending this out to kick off a broader discussion on these topics.
Thoughts?
Opinions? Objections?


To baseline: I am all in favor of an eventual world to get rid of the TC
IRC meeting (and honestly IRC meetings in general), for all the reasons
listed above.

I shut down my IRC bouncer over a year ago specifically because I think
that the assumption of being on IRC all the time is an anti pattern that
we should be avoiding in our community.

But, that being said, we have a working system right now, one where I
honestly can't remember the last time we had an IRC meeting get to every
topic we wanted to cover and not run into the time limit. That is data
that these needs are not being addressed in other places (yet).

So the concrete steps I would go with is:

1) We need to stop requiring IRC meetings as part of meeting the Open
definition.

That has propagated this issue a lot -
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/462077

2) We really need to stop putting items like the project adds.

That's often forcing someone up in the middle of the night for 15
minutes for no particularly good reason.


We've been doing this because it is a requirement in our process but yeah, we
can change this.


3) Don't do interactive reviews in gerrit.

Again, kind of a waste of time that is better in async. It's mostly
triggered by the fact that gerrit doesn't make a good discussion medium
in looking at broad strokes. It's really good about precision feedback,
but broad strokes, it's tough.

One counter suggestion here is to have every governance patch that's not
trivial require that an email come to the list tagged [tc] [governance]
for people to comment more free form here.


I've mentioned this a gazillion of times and I believe it just keeps going
unheard. I think this should be the *default* and I don't think requiring a
thread to be started is enough. I think we can be more proactive and start
threads ourselves when one is needed. The reason is that in "heated" patches
there can be different topics and we might need multiple-threads for some
patches. There's a lot that will have to be done to keep these emails on track.


4) See what the impact of the summary that Chris is sending out does to
make people feel like they understand what is going on in the meeting.
Because I also think that we make assumptions that the log of the
meeting describes what really happened. And I think that's often an
incorrect assumption. The same words used by Monty, Thierry, Jeremy mean
different things. Which you only know by knowing them all as people.
Having human interpretation of the meeting is good an puts together a
more ingestible narrative for people.


I disagree! I don't think we make those assumptions, which is why Anne and
myself worked on those blog posts summarizing what had been going on in the TC.
Those posts stopped but I think we should start working on them already. I've
pinged cdent and I think he's up to work with me on this. cdent yay/nay ?



Then evaluate because we will know that we need the meeting less (or
less often) when we're regularly ending in 45 minutes, or 30 minutes,
instead of slamming up against the wall with people feeling they had
more to say.


TBH, I'm a bit frustrated. what you've written here looks a lot to what's in the
resolution and what I've been saying except that the suggestion is to not shut
meetings down right away but evaluate what happens and then shut them down, or
not, which is fine.

My problem with this is that we *need* everyone in the TC to *actually* change
the way they work on their TC tasks. We need to be more proactive in reviews
that *are not* in the meeting agenda, we need to engage more frequently in
discussions. Unfortunately, sometimes humans need hard changes to actually
modify the way they do stuff.

Anyway, let's start by removing the requirement on having meetings, the
requirement for rubber stamping reviews and have Thierry 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Should the Technical Committee meetings be dropped?

2017-05-07 Thread Flavio Percoco

On 05/05/17 11:22 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Sean McGinnis wrote:

[...]
But part of my concern to getting rid of the meeting is that I do find it
valuable. The arguments against having it are some of the same I've heard for
our in-person events. It's hard for some to travel to the PTG. There's a lot
of active discussion at the PTG that is definitely a challenge for non-native
speakers to keep up with. But I think we all recognize what value having events
like the PTG provide. Or the Summit/Design Summit/Forum/Midcycle/
pick-your-favorite.


It's a great point. We definitely make faster progress on some reviews
by committing to that one-hour weekly busy segment. I think the
difference with the PTG (or midcycles) is that PTG is a lot more
productive setting than the meeting is, due to increased, face-to-face
bandwidth combined with a flexible schedule. It's also an exceptional
once-per-cycle event, rather than how we conduct business day-to-day.
It's useful to get together and we are very productive when we do, but
that doesn't mean we should all move and live all the time in the same
house to get things done.

I think we have come to rely too much on the weekly meeting. For a lot
of us, it provides a convenient, weekly hour to do TC business, and a
helpful reminder of what things should be reviewed before it. It allows
to conveniently ignore TC business for the rest of the week.
Unfortunately, due to us living on a globe, it happens at an hour that
is a problem for some, and a no-go for others. So that convenience is
paid in the price of other's inconvenience or exclusion. Changing or
rotating the hour just creates more confusion, disruption and misery. So
I think we need to reduce our dependency on that meeting.

We don't have to stop doing meetings entirely. But I think that
day-to-day TC business should be conducted more on the ML and the
reviews, and that meetings should be exceptional. That can be achieved
by posting a weekly pulse email, and only organizing meetings when we
need the additional bandwidth (like if the review and ML threads are not
going anywhere). Then the meeting can be organized at the most
convenient time for the most critical stakeholders, rather than at the
weekly set time that provides the less overall inconvenience. If we need
a meeting to directly discuss a new project team proposed by people
based in Beijing, we should not have that meeting at 4am Beijing time,
and that should be the only meeting topic.


++

Yes, and I wouldn't even call these ad-hoc conversations meetings. Really, it's
more like "logged" conversations. Logging is enabled in every main OpenStack
channel.

The important part is changing the way we interact and work from an TC
perspective. The way it's done currently is *NOT* very friendly for folks that
are not in a US timezone and that are non-English speakers.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Should the Technical Committee meetings be dropped?

2017-05-05 Thread Sean Dague
On 05/04/2017 01:10 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote:

> Some of the current TC activities depend on the meeting to some extent:
> 
> * We use the meeting to give the final ack on some the formal-vote reviews.
> * Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting agenda to know what they
>  should be reviewing.
> * Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting as a way to review or
>  paticipate in active discussions.
> * Some folks use the meeting logs to catch up on what's going on in the TC
> 
> In the resolution that has been proposed[1], we've listed possible
> solutions for
> some of this issues and others:
> 
> * Having office hours
> * Sending weekly updates (pulse) on the current reviews and TC discussions
> 
> Regardless we do this change on one-shot or multiple steps (or don't do
> it at
> all), I believe it requires changing the way TC activities are done:
> 
> * It requires folks (especially TC members) to be more active on reviewing
>  governance patches
> * It requires folks to engage more on the mailing list and start more
>  discussions there.
> 
> Sending this out to kick off a broader discussion on these topics.
> Thoughts?
> Opinions? Objections?

To baseline: I am all in favor of an eventual world to get rid of the TC
IRC meeting (and honestly IRC meetings in general), for all the reasons
listed above.

I shut down my IRC bouncer over a year ago specifically because I think
that the assumption of being on IRC all the time is an anti pattern that
we should be avoiding in our community.

But, that being said, we have a working system right now, one where I
honestly can't remember the last time we had an IRC meeting get to every
topic we wanted to cover and not run into the time limit. That is data
that these needs are not being addressed in other places (yet).

So the concrete steps I would go with is:

1) We need to stop requiring IRC meetings as part of meeting the Open
definition.

That has propagated this issue a lot -
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/462077

2) We really need to stop putting items like the project adds.

That's often forcing someone up in the middle of the night for 15
minutes for no particularly good reason.

3) Don't do interactive reviews in gerrit.

Again, kind of a waste of time that is better in async. It's mostly
triggered by the fact that gerrit doesn't make a good discussion medium
in looking at broad strokes. It's really good about precision feedback,
but broad strokes, it's tough.

One counter suggestion here is to have every governance patch that's not
trivial require that an email come to the list tagged [tc] [governance]
for people to comment more free form here.

4) See what the impact of the summary that Chris is sending out does to
make people feel like they understand what is going on in the meeting.
Because I also think that we make assumptions that the log of the
meeting describes what really happened. And I think that's often an
incorrect assumption. The same words used by Monty, Thierry, Jeremy mean
different things. Which you only know by knowing them all as people.
Having human interpretation of the meeting is good an puts together a
more ingestible narrative for people.


Then evaluate because we will know that we need the meeting less (or
less often) when we're regularly ending in 45 minutes, or 30 minutes,
instead of slamming up against the wall with people feeling they had
more to say.

-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Should the Technical Committee meetings be dropped?

2017-05-05 Thread Thierry Carrez
Sean McGinnis wrote:
> [...]
> But part of my concern to getting rid of the meeting is that I do find it
> valuable. The arguments against having it are some of the same I've heard for
> our in-person events. It's hard for some to travel to the PTG. There's a lot
> of active discussion at the PTG that is definitely a challenge for non-native
> speakers to keep up with. But I think we all recognize what value having 
> events
> like the PTG provide. Or the Summit/Design Summit/Forum/Midcycle/
> pick-your-favorite.

It's a great point. We definitely make faster progress on some reviews
by committing to that one-hour weekly busy segment. I think the
difference with the PTG (or midcycles) is that PTG is a lot more
productive setting than the meeting is, due to increased, face-to-face
bandwidth combined with a flexible schedule. It's also an exceptional
once-per-cycle event, rather than how we conduct business day-to-day.
It's useful to get together and we are very productive when we do, but
that doesn't mean we should all move and live all the time in the same
house to get things done.

I think we have come to rely too much on the weekly meeting. For a lot
of us, it provides a convenient, weekly hour to do TC business, and a
helpful reminder of what things should be reviewed before it. It allows
to conveniently ignore TC business for the rest of the week.
Unfortunately, due to us living on a globe, it happens at an hour that
is a problem for some, and a no-go for others. So that convenience is
paid in the price of other's inconvenience or exclusion. Changing or
rotating the hour just creates more confusion, disruption and misery. So
I think we need to reduce our dependency on that meeting.

We don't have to stop doing meetings entirely. But I think that
day-to-day TC business should be conducted more on the ML and the
reviews, and that meetings should be exceptional. That can be achieved
by posting a weekly pulse email, and only organizing meetings when we
need the additional bandwidth (like if the review and ML threads are not
going anywhere). Then the meeting can be organized at the most
convenient time for the most critical stakeholders, rather than at the
weekly set time that provides the less overall inconvenience. If we need
a meeting to directly discuss a new project team proposed by people
based in Beijing, we should not have that meeting at 4am Beijing time,
and that should be the only meeting topic.

Cheers!

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Should the Technical Committee meetings be dropped?

2017-05-05 Thread Julien Danjou
On Thu, May 04 2017, Flavio Percoco wrote:

> Sending this out to kick off a broader discussion on these topics. Thoughts?
> Opinions? Objections?

IRC meetings are a barrier of entry for many people because it makes it
complicated to contribute as you described (and as I did a while back¹).

So I'm completely for their suppression as one of the main medium of
conversation – that does not mean IRC has to be banned. :)

¹  https://julien.danjou.info/blog/2016/foss-projects-management-bad-practice

-- 
Julien Danjou
/* Free Software hacker
   https://julien.danjou.info */


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] Should the Technical Committee meetings be dropped?

2017-05-04 Thread Sean McGinnis
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:10:41AM -0700, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> In the last Technical Committee meeting, we discussed the idea of dropping the
> Technical Committee meeting entirely[0][1] in favor of a more asynchronous
> communication. Here's a brief summary of the problems this is trying to solve
> (most taken from the proposal):
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Regardless we do this change on one-shot or multiple steps (or don't do it at
> all), I believe it requires changing the way TC activities are done:
> 
> * It requires folks (especially TC members) to be more active on reviewing
>  governance patches
> * It requires folks to engage more on the mailing list and start more
>  discussions there.
> 
> Sending this out to kick off a broader discussion on these topics. Thoughts?
> Opinions? Objections?
> 

I'll start off saying I'm fine trying this for a cycle or two to see if we can
make it work. There's nothing saying we can't reinstate the meeting if we
realize it was giving us something that we are not able to get (or adjust to
getting) through ad hoc IRC chats and mailing list discussions.

But part of my concern to getting rid of the meeting is that I do find it
valuable. The arguments against having it are some of the same I've heard for
our in-person events. It's hard for some to travel to the PTG. There's a lot
of active discussion at the PTG that is definitely a challenge for non-native
speakers to keep up with. But I think we all recognize what value having events
like the PTG provide. Or the Summit/Design Summit/Forum/Midcycle/
pick-your-favorite.

Just airing my concerns though. I do think we can make an effort and still get
things accomplished without the weekly meeting. There's some intangible 
benefits to having everyone together in one place in real time that will need
to be evaluated as we go to make sure we are not losing out on something we
have now.

Sean

> [0] 
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2017/tc.2017-05-02-20.01.log.html
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459848/
> 
> -- 
> @flaper87
> Flavio Percoco



> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


[openstack-dev] [tc][all] Should the Technical Committee meetings be dropped?

2017-05-04 Thread Flavio Percoco

Greetings,

In the last Technical Committee meeting, we discussed the idea of dropping the
Technical Committee meeting entirely[0][1] in favor of a more asynchronous
communication. Here's a brief summary of the problems this is trying to solve
(most taken from the proposal):

* It takes place a specific time of day, even if we have rotating time slots,
 we are always excluding someone.

* The fast paced nature of the IRC meetings can exclude many for the
 conversation. Many native English speakers struggle to keep track of the
 conversation and get their point across. It is even worse for non-native
 English speakers.

* Feels like many conversations happen outside the meeting in non-open-enough
 ways, we should make it easy to have more open conversations.

* Reduce the number of places where topics are discussed and, instead, improve
 the way we use the other ones we have, which favor a more distributed 
community.

The discussion in the meeting started from what problems this proposal is trying
to solve and evolved into whether we should go all-in on this or take baby steps
towards dropping the meeting and see how things evolve.

Some of the current TC activities depend on the meeting to some extent:

* We use the meeting to give the final ack on some the formal-vote reviews.
* Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting agenda to know what they
 should be reviewing.
* Some folks (tc members and not) use the meeting as a way to review or
 paticipate in active discussions.
* Some folks use the meeting logs to catch up on what's going on in the TC

In the resolution that has been proposed[1], we've listed possible solutions for
some of this issues and others:

* Having office hours
* Sending weekly updates (pulse) on the current reviews and TC discussions

Regardless we do this change on one-shot or multiple steps (or don't do it at
all), I believe it requires changing the way TC activities are done:

* It requires folks (especially TC members) to be more active on reviewing
 governance patches
* It requires folks to engage more on the mailing list and start more
 discussions there.

Sending this out to kick off a broader discussion on these topics. Thoughts?
Opinions? Objections?

[0] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2017/tc.2017-05-02-20.01.log.html
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/459848/

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev